political clout.“Robert
Weeden, President of the
Alaska Conservation Society
in the 1970s (Catton 1997:
209)
In addition to understanding
the local transformations
brought about by the cre-
ation of national parks and
other protected areas, it is
also important to understand
historical variables influencing
the political clout of specific
indigenous communities.
Political clout empowers indigenous commu-
nities to pursue livelihood strategies that
resonate with their traditional cultural val-
ues. It also makes them viable partners in
community-based conservation interven-
tions, while allowing them to enter into
partnerships on a relatively equal footing
with western conservationists.
Two closely related historical variables
appear to influence political clout for indige-
nous communities: sovereignty and legal
rights to land, especially in the form of an
officially designated corporate territory.^9 In
situations where such rights are present,
indigenous communities have more oppor-
tunities to pursue resource management
practices that are consistent with their ‘tra-
ditional’ cultural values, although this is no
guarantee that they will do so. These types
of rights also create opportunities to take a
prominent role in defining conservation
interventions, of which they are the intend-
ed beneficiaries. In situations where they do
not enjoy these rights, they have tended to
fare much worse.^10
The case of Tanzania presents a particularly
poignant example of this problem. Colonial
land laws in this country were designed
specifically to transfer land from African
communities to European settlers and colo-
nial development/conservation projects,
including parks. These transfers could be
undertaken by bureaucratic fiat, without
consulting local communities. The situation
remains nearly unchanged in contemporary
Tanzania.^11 As these processes of land
transfer fundamentally transformed peoples
resource management systems, they also
transformed their cultural values and envi-
ronmental knowledge. Often new resource
management practices and cultural values
are inimical to the management of parks
and other protected areas.^12 This situation
has also contributed to an atmosphere of
suspicion concerning anything called conser-
vation. Finally, since local people have little
say over the disposition of land and other
natural resources, they have little to offer as
partners in community-based conservation
interventions.
This situation stands in stark contrast to
Alaska and Australia, where the legally pro-
tected land rights of indigenous communi-
ties has enabled them to negotiate for the
creation of parks that would protect their
traditional territories, and in which they
would be allowed to remain resident. They
also were able to negotiate co-management
agreements, in which indigenous represen-
tatives would have a direct role in the man-
agement of the parks in question. The situ-
ation also stands in contrast to Brazil where
the protected status of indigenous commu-
nities has allowed them to enter into
alliances with international conservation
organisations to create even larger parks
and prevent the construction of a hydro-
electric dam.^13
In the United States, some indigenous com-
munities enjoy both legally protected terri-
tory and quasi-sovereign status. Because of
the nature of the history of parks and reser-
vations, however, this situation has not con-
sistently translated into political clout for
indigenous communities when it comes to
conservation.^14 Some indigenous groups
were removed from places that became
History, cculture aand cconservation
Two cclosely rrelat-
ed hhistorical vvari-
ables aappear tto
influence ppolitical
clout ffor iindige-
nous ccommuni-
ties: ssovereignty
and llegal rrights
to lland, eespecially
in tthe fform oof aan
officially
designated ccorpo-
rate tterritory
